Szelethus added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PlistDiagnostics.cpp:896-898 + RawLexer.reset(new Lexer(SM.getLocForStartOfFile(LocInfo.first), LangOpts, + MB->getBufferStart(), MacroNameTokenPos, + MB->getBufferEnd())); ---------------- steakhal wrote: > I'm always puzzled if I see a naked `new`. > Couldn't we use the assignment operator and `std::make_unique` here? Wait, isn't it naked if its //not// surrounded by smart pointer stuff? In any case, explicit calls to operator `new` and `delete` are indeed discouraged by the [[http://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#r11-avoid-calling-new-and-delete-explicitly | core guidelines]]. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PlistDiagnostics.cpp:1150-1161 // Acquire the macro's arguments at the expansion point. // // The rough idea here is to lex from the first left parentheses to the last // right parentheses, and map the macro's parameter to what they will be // expanded to. A macro argument may contain several token (like '3 + 4'), so // we'll lex until we find a tok::comma or tok::r_paren, at which point we // start lexing the next argument or finish. ---------------- steakhal wrote: > By //lexing// one might think we use the actual lexer. Should we change this > comment? I see what you mean, but this is why its phrased as a rough idea, not an in-depth step-by-step description of the process covering corner cases -- not in this comment, at least. Functionally, you could argue that we're lexing even if we get tokens from the injected range. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86135/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86135 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
